Home > Riviste > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Fascicoli precedenti > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2017 August;53(4) > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2017 August;53(4):493-500

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Per citare questo articolo

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE

Rivista di Medicina Fisica e Riabilitativa dopo Eventi Patologici


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER), European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM), European Union of Medical Specialists - Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Section (UEMS-PRM), Mediterranean Forum of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (MFPRM), Hellenic Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EEFIAP)
In association with International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM)
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,827


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  FREEfree


European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2017 August;53(4):493-500

DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04367-2

Copyright © 2017 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

A comparison of two comorbidity indices for predicting inpatient rehabilitation outcomes

Peter W. NEW 1, 2, 3 , Arul EARNEST 3, Grant D. SCROGGIE 4

1 Department of Rehabilitation and Aged Care, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia; 2 Epworth-Monash Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Southern Medical School, Monash University, Victoria, Australia; 3 Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia; 4 Department of Physiotherapy, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia


PDF  


BACKGROUND: Comorbid conditions are important in health care. The best comorbidity index for predicting the impact of comorbidities on rehabilitation outcomes has not been determined.
AIM: Compare the associations of comorbidity measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the Cumulative Index Rating Scale (CIRS) with key rehabilitation outcomes. Aim was to determine whether either of these comorbidity indices helped explain the variation in key rehabilitation outcomes.
DESIGN: Prospective open-cohort study.
SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation ward, Melbourne, Australia.
POPULATION: Adults admitted for inpatient rehabilitation (N.=280).
METHODS: The main outcomes were demographic (e.g. age, gender, discharge destination) and clinical outcomes (reason for rehabilitation, length of stay, LOS, Functional Independence Measure, CCI and CIRS). A series of regression analyses were performed to determine the influence of comorbidity on three dependent variables: 1) LOS in rehabilitation; 2) the change in Functional Independence Measure-motor score between rehabilitation discharge and admission; 3) the discharge destination (home vs. other).
RESULTS: The mean age was 57.7 years, there were slightly more females (51%), most (95%) patients previously lived at home with family or other relatives (63%). The most common reason for rehabilitation was orthopedic or other conditions (52%) and most (80%) people were discharged home. The median LOS was 27 days. There were 100 (35.7%) patients who had no comorbidity recorded using the CCI, 112 (40.0%) had one comorbidity and 26 (9.3%) who had three or more. All patients had at least one comorbidity recorded with the CIRS, and 264 (94.3%) had 3 or more comorbidities. There was little or no difference between the CCI or CIRS in terms of their ability to explain the variance in LOS (adjusted R2=0.38 with and without comorbidities), change in disability during rehabilitation (adjusted R2=0.31-0.33 with and without comorbidities) or the discharge destination (AUC=0.72 without comorbidities; 0.73-0.74 with comorbidities) beyond that accounted for by demographic and clinical information.
CONCLUSIONS: Neither the CIRS nor the CCI in our patient sample provide additional information that explains the impact of comorbidities on key rehabilitation outcomes.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Further research is needed to determine the most appropriate measure of comorbidity of relevance to inpatient rehabilitation outcomes.


KEY WORDS: Comorbidity - Inpatients - Outcome assessment (health care) - Rehabilitation

inizio pagina

Publication History

Issue published online: August 30, 2017
Article first published online: January 12, 2017
Manuscript accepted: January 10, 2017
Manuscript revised: January 5, 2017
Manuscript received: June 17, 2016

Per citare questo articolo

New PW, Earnest A, Scroggie GD. A comparison of two comorbidity indices for predicting inpatient rehabilitation outcomes. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2017;53:493-500. DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04367-2

Corresponding author e-mail

peter.new@monashhealth.org